Secession and Secessionist Movements

IF 1.2 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Science Pub Date : 2021-06-23 DOI:10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0336
{"title":"Secession and Secessionist Movements","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0336","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Secession and secessionists movements have proliferated since the end of the Second World War. The academic literature has extensively explored these movements from different aspects. To begin, scholars have developed several legal approaches to explain when and if so how secession should take place, resulting in debates about the normative basis and legality of self-determination. Normative and philosophical approaches have sought to establish a number of necessary preconditions for secession. States, according to some of these authors, should allow secession to happen when they believe that it is morally and practically acceptable. The political economy of secession and secessionist movements has been another key area of research. Debates among scholars in this area have focused on whether wealthy or poor regions are more or less likely to pursue secession, how the presence of oil resources may establish more opportunities for the groups to secede along with incentives for the state to hold onto the territory, and what role state capacity and movement capabilities play in secessionist dynamics. Scholars have also emphasized economic approaches to the study of secession that highlight the costs and benefits of staying in the union compared to seceding. Others have studied secessionism from an international perspective and have particularly focused on exploring the impact of external kin on secessionist movements and on why and how self-determination movements obtain international recognition. International approaches have also explored the roles of ethnic ties and vulnerability in stimulating and curbing secessionist movements. Other scholars have focused on institutional approaches by exploring how different domestic and international institutions have shaped secessionist conflicts. In particular, research in this area has explored the relationship between democracy and secession, institutional legacies, and the role of autonomy and lost autonomy on separatism. Scholars have also examined the strategic choices and behaviors used by both secessionist groups (violence vs. nonviolence) and by states (concession and repression), and relatedly how reputational concerns for resolve and setting precedents shape state behavior toward secessionists. Some research shows that most states are more likely to fight against secessionist movements than to grant them concessions, particularly states facing multiple (potential) separatists. However, other scholars have challenged these claims, and shown that states can use organizational lines to grant some concessions to secessionist groups without damaging their reputations. Looking toward solutions, some scholars have emphasized institutional solutions, such as consociationalism, and still others have looked to international organizations to resolve secessionist conflicts, while skeptics have suggested that approaches like partition are often the only way forward. Finally, there are several new datasets for studying secession and secessionist movements, including All Minorities at Risk (AMAR), Family EPR, SDM, and others.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0336","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Secession and secessionists movements have proliferated since the end of the Second World War. The academic literature has extensively explored these movements from different aspects. To begin, scholars have developed several legal approaches to explain when and if so how secession should take place, resulting in debates about the normative basis and legality of self-determination. Normative and philosophical approaches have sought to establish a number of necessary preconditions for secession. States, according to some of these authors, should allow secession to happen when they believe that it is morally and practically acceptable. The political economy of secession and secessionist movements has been another key area of research. Debates among scholars in this area have focused on whether wealthy or poor regions are more or less likely to pursue secession, how the presence of oil resources may establish more opportunities for the groups to secede along with incentives for the state to hold onto the territory, and what role state capacity and movement capabilities play in secessionist dynamics. Scholars have also emphasized economic approaches to the study of secession that highlight the costs and benefits of staying in the union compared to seceding. Others have studied secessionism from an international perspective and have particularly focused on exploring the impact of external kin on secessionist movements and on why and how self-determination movements obtain international recognition. International approaches have also explored the roles of ethnic ties and vulnerability in stimulating and curbing secessionist movements. Other scholars have focused on institutional approaches by exploring how different domestic and international institutions have shaped secessionist conflicts. In particular, research in this area has explored the relationship between democracy and secession, institutional legacies, and the role of autonomy and lost autonomy on separatism. Scholars have also examined the strategic choices and behaviors used by both secessionist groups (violence vs. nonviolence) and by states (concession and repression), and relatedly how reputational concerns for resolve and setting precedents shape state behavior toward secessionists. Some research shows that most states are more likely to fight against secessionist movements than to grant them concessions, particularly states facing multiple (potential) separatists. However, other scholars have challenged these claims, and shown that states can use organizational lines to grant some concessions to secessionist groups without damaging their reputations. Looking toward solutions, some scholars have emphasized institutional solutions, such as consociationalism, and still others have looked to international organizations to resolve secessionist conflicts, while skeptics have suggested that approaches like partition are often the only way forward. Finally, there are several new datasets for studying secession and secessionist movements, including All Minorities at Risk (AMAR), Family EPR, SDM, and others.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分离主义和分离主义运动
自第二次世界大战结束以来,分裂国家和分离主义运动激增。学术文献从不同角度对这些运动进行了广泛的探讨。首先,学者们已经发展了几种法律方法来解释何时以及如果是这样的话,分裂应该如何发生,导致关于自决的规范基础和合法性的辩论。规范的和哲学的方法试图为脱离建立一些必要的先决条件。其中一些作者认为,当各州认为脱离联邦在道德上和实际上是可以接受的时候,就应该允许这种情况发生。分离主义和分离主义运动的政治经济学是另一个重要的研究领域。该领域学者之间的争论主要集中在富裕或贫困地区是否更有可能寻求分离,石油资源的存在如何为这些群体提供更多的分离机会以及国家保持领土的动机,以及国家能力和运动能力在分离主义动态中扮演什么角色。学者们还强调用经济方法来研究脱离联邦,强调与脱离联邦相比,留在联邦的成本和收益。其他人从国际角度研究分离主义,并特别侧重于探索外部亲属对分离主义运动的影响,以及自决运动为何以及如何获得国际承认。国际途径也探讨了种族关系和脆弱性在刺激和遏制分离主义运动方面的作用。其他学者通过探索不同的国内和国际制度如何形成分离主义冲突,将重点放在制度方法上。特别是,这一领域的研究探讨了民主与分裂的关系、制度遗产以及自治和失去自治对分离主义的作用。学者们还研究了分离主义团体(暴力与非暴力)和国家(让步与镇压)所使用的战略选择和行为,以及有关解决和树立先例的声誉问题如何影响国家对分离主义者的行为。一些研究表明,大多数国家更有可能打击分裂主义运动,而不是给予他们让步,特别是那些面临多个(潜在)分裂主义者的国家。然而,其他学者对这些说法提出了质疑,并表明各州可以利用组织方式向分离主义团体作出一些让步,而不会损害他们的声誉。在寻求解决方案时,一些学者强调制度解决方案,如联合主义,还有一些人则指望国际组织来解决分离主义冲突,而怀疑论者则认为,分裂等方法往往是唯一的出路。最后,有几个新的数据集用于研究分裂和分离主义运动,包括所有处于危险中的少数民族(AMAR)、家庭EPR、SDM等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Science
Political Science POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Political Science publishes high quality original scholarly works in the broad field of political science. Submission of articles with a regional focus on New Zealand and the Asia-Pacific is particularly encouraged, but content is not limited to this focus. Contributions are invited from across the political science discipline, including from the fields of international relations, comparative politics, political theory and public administration. Proposals for collections of articles on a common theme or debate to be published as special issues are welcome, as well as individual submissions.
期刊最新文献
Sloppy targeting of Chinese voters in the 2020 New Zealand general election: an exploration of National and Labour’s targeting strategies Leaderless Movements? Rethinking Leaders, Spontaneity, and Organisation-Ness The Realpolitik of small states: explaining New Zealand’s silence on human rights violations in Turkey (Türkiye) and China Identity and institutional thickening of Asia and the Pacific: narrating regional belonging in the foreign policy of Indonesia Referendum campaign financing by political parties: the case of the United Kingdom
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1